As Mr. Furches has already pointed out "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

In the First Amendment you will not find the words "religious liberty" however courts have found the the PRINCIPLE for religious liberty exists behind the First Amendment. The point of such amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attemted government control. This is why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to beleive and teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. When our forefathers wrote the Constitution they wanted to stay away from the problems that was created in Europe when you have government "Established" churches.

Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similary, the First Amendment guarantees the priciple of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separation of church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist. In which also many people think the Constitution states "separation of church and state" which does not appear either. Nor does any where in the Constitution does it say we have the "right to privacy" or the "right to a fair trial", the amendments are setting up the conditions for fair trials, and right to privacy these are just a couple of many examples.

Three foundations where used when writting the constitution; Inherent Rights, Self Government, and Seperation of Powers. I will only speak of the Inherent Rights- Rights that ANYONE living in America has - Its says, nothing about color, religion, Alien, Us Citizen, age, level of education it simply says that everyone has the same rights while in America.

So some would say is this his right to have a beard because of his beleifs. Some would say he's not American so he don't have any rights. I don't know the answer, but most rules are established for the betterment of the majority, and not on a indiviual bases to please one. I grew up in the late 70's early 80's and I remember getting a coaches haircut because my hair was a little to long. It was the RULE.

LAW-Implies imposition by a sovereign authority and the obligation of obedience on the part of all subject to that authority <Obey the Law>

RULE- Applies to more restricted or specific situations <The rules of the game>

There is our answer on this question. Change the rule, and you can have a beard. Pretty Simple

Ronnie Johnson

Ronnie, a good intelligent answer that will have me thinking. I agree, if an issue, and even if found to be a violation, the rules have to be changed first. The question for me is are there legitimate reasons as to have the rule changed.

Again, my thoughts, not even finished processing them yet so I may change my opinion in the next 30 minutes or so. That said, I personally believe that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are for U.S. Citizens, no others. That isn’t to belittle or put down another group, but like another poster stated earlier, when in Rome do as the Romans. This is America and until the rules are changed the rules are the rules. I do believe that in a case as presented though, one has to look at it from a perspective of “what if it was the case for USA Citizen, which it easily could be.”

In regards to certain rules and so forth being overturned because they violate constitutional rights, this has happened with threat of action, even as of recent, in regards to some cases at golf courses where discrimination and things of this sort has taken place. Again, not a lawyer here, but in those cases, where all private funds are used, the organizations have been allowed to establish their own rules, however, where public funds are used, then expectation is expected.

There are many examples of this, example, the “fair and reasonable” clause with the ADA. We have seen adaptations in wrestling for example for different rules for persons who have various limitations, whether it be a missing limb, being deaf, or blind. In those situations, for whatever reason, someone decided it was important to establish differing rules, within the rules to allow for fair participation. When a “legitimate” religious reason is given, I can see this as possibly following within the same realm. Of course that is to assume that evidence can be given and not just a spur of the moment religious conversion experience to support the position. That in and of itself is a part of the problem though. I above all people realize that spur of the moment conversions happen, and are also imagined or used to advantage.

I for one certainly appreciate the intelligent response you gave, and in all honesty, will have me processing my own thoughts. Don’t know if that counts for anything other than saying, I honestly don’t know and believe that the discussion is of value.

What I truely feel is - Seeing how wrestling is the oldest and greatest sport around, and most everyone I have ever meet in the sport are pretty darn good people. It at times is hard to imagine that we would have people complain for any reason to keep someone (especially a young high school athlete) from participating. We have boy's wrestling girls - in which some think that this is the closest thing to indecency that schools allow, we have kids who wrestle with handicaps, missing limbs, blind and so on. The beard issue in some way is kind of like what I have mentioned. So short of bringing a baseball bat out on the mat I don't see any advantage any of these wrestler would have, nor a diadvantage to any of their opponents, but than again I'm sure someone could give a list of reasons why once they lost to one of them.

Again a rule is a rule in which some say a rule is meant to be broken. However, rules do change to keep up with the changing times, in which everyday is a new day and yesterday was the past. Today the world we live in changes before our eyes, and I coming from a Nazarene Church background I know over years religion and religous beliefs have changed somewhat to keep up with the changing of times, so simply why can't somethings change for ones religous beliefs.

But do we live in a country where religous beliefs are no longer important, some might say yes.

I got a e-mail the other day where a group of hundreds American Soldiers where kneeling in prayer in Irag morning the lose of their falling comrades. A well known group protested saying that these where government employees, on government property and that this was a voilation of some sort of Law (?)by these soldiers - Keep in mind these are the same soilders who put their life on the line so we in America has the freedom to protest, or voice our opinion. There are Countries that shut completely down daily to kneel in prayer, and give thanks, and we call the uncivil.

So I agree with you Mike, I honsestly don't know the answer either, but see how one simple thing like a beard can open the doors for so many others issues of discussion. So is the beard really that big of a thing?

Ronnie Johnson

On a related issue ... Justin Ruiz, who is now our World Team Member, in the past would not compete on Sundays. Ruiz, who is a Mormon, felt it was against his religious beliefs. For the past few years, he has competed on Sundays.

As I grow older, most of my beliefs lie in the spiritual realm as opposed to the religious one. Personally, I don't feel that whether I shave, compete on Sundays, or have a wife that shows her face in public; will impact those beliefs or anger my spiritual "God."

I'm just glad to live in a country where it is acceptable to have a contrary view!!

Stop bathing for spiritual or religious reasons and see how acceptable it is to the rest of us.

I teach World History and I have never seen anything within the pillars of Islam that require the wearing a beard. I’m by no means an expert on this subject, but I have seen plenty of Muslims that don’t wear beards and I don’t think they have fallen from grace with Allah!

I’m a little tired of everyone thinking the U.S. should tweak rules or laws to suit a foreign visitor who is unhappy with them. Keep in mind that this is our country and not theirs. Abdal is a guest in this country and as a guest he needs to respect our rules as we are expected to in his country. Our soldiers are dying to ensure their (Iraqis) freedom and yet our soldiers have to abide by the laws of Iraqi society, so why is too much to ask for others to do the same while in our country. No!

Abdal is not being discriminated against just because he can’t wear a beard. Everyone that goes out on the mat has to follow the same rule, so discrimination isn’t a question here. The rule was never made with the idea of discriminating against Islam and it’s followers.

About a year ago I remember Nancy Pelosi visiting Syria and one of the things she was required to do was wear a hair scarf and she did it.

If Abdal wants to wrestle he needs to shave period.

Our soilders are fighing over seas for the freedom of every indivual human being on the face of the planet.

Personally, i find it VERY sad that there would be even a question about the beard. There shouldn't even be a question. There is no advantage in wrestling if you have a beard.

THESE are the facts- Abdul IS a visitor from Iraq, but belive it or not, there are Muslim Americans. http://www.islam.tc/beard/beard.html will show you everything you need to know about having a beard in the Muslim Culture.

ZERO, NONE, NOT A PERSON ALIVE- should be able to tell another person to go agianst their religon. ITS A BEARD. askl;djf A BEARD.

Is it agianst Nancy Pelosi's religon to wear a hair scarf??? DUH no.

coach neil-

with all due respect...

1) i dont see how this specific individual being a visitor to the country applies. we arent talking about the right to vote, we're talking about competing in a high school sport. plus, their are muslim americans who i'm sure have the same belief.

2) when you say, "this is our country and not theirs" apperantly you are refferring to foreign visitors. but once again, with immigration and the already existing muslim american culture this country belongs to all skin colors and creeds.

3) i really wish people would stop bringing up our soldiers in iraq over these issues. this kid and other situations like this have nothing to do with the war we are in and there is no connection whatsoever.

4) whats it hurting if the rule changes? isn't the point of high school sports to get kids involved? especially those with talent. i could totally understand if the rule effected the way the match was wrestled, but i can't see how this does. the "follow the rules" thing doesnt always work anymore. rules are changed all the time. and they should be, because we should always be working to improve.

Isn't it somewhat funny how a simple beard issue, can turn into a debate bringing out all types of issues, and true feelings.
The statement "Keep in mind that this is our country not theirs" can open a door of all types finger pointing. One would ask just who's country is this really? Yes we live in the greatest country in the World but as a History Teacher you surely know the facts on just how this came about - Who was the foreignor than? Was the so called Resorvations nothing more than a 1800 form of a Concentration Camp - some might say they were savage and need pinned up - "Corner a snake and he bits back" - Mexico - are they the Mexican people who come over really illegal? or did sometime back someone simply just move their border. Also the Japenese durning WWII, African American's, the list could go on and on. On how we in America ourselves has treated people while building this great nation.

I don't want to get into great detail however, when we make statements see what doors you can open for so many other things.

Ronnie Johnson

I guess I should have took a little more time to think about the topic before I wrote anything. Kind of a knee jerk reaction on my part. Let me see if I can do a better job this time.

Yes this topic has digressed from the original topic and I inadvertently assisted with that. The rule is there for a reason. Some might find it a valid reason and some not. Doesn’t matter it has to be followed. I don’t think we need rule changes every time it doesn’t suit a person’s personal needs. Remember rules are set for the good of the whole.

I should have been a little more specific when referring to our country as that of the United States citizens. I took it for granted that everyone would understand the implications of the statement “our”. Silly me not remembering that is just not the mind set of this society today.

I guess when someone refers to this country as ours it automatically qualifies them for bigotry status. Stupid me I should have know better. wrestle007 re- read my post. I don’t remember ever referencing race or color. Once again something the reader implied. As I get older I forget that being politically correct outweighs any time-honored notions of morality, equality, fairness, tradition, and patriotic feelings. I will admit I’m narrow minded and set in my ways, but I guess I find it very hard to consider a change in the way we do things so that someone can honor Allah. Just remember how Allah was honored six years ago today.


Ronnie learn how to spell before you start quoting history to me.

i guess my point is this situation can apply to united state citizens even though this specific situation isn't a united state citizen.

yes, rules are set for a reason. whether that reason is good is often up for debate. i'm not asking that anyone breaks the rule. i'm asking if the rule should be changed. rules are changed all the time and we should always be working to improve them. plus throughout our history great changes have happened in our country because people are willing to question authority. i dont believe people should ever just blindly accept what is in place without looking to see if their is a better way.

i also find it hard to believe that you would really draw comparison between a kid who's muslim background/culture has him wear a beard and the hijackers of september 11.

If this is such a big deal then you need to go through proper channels to get the rule changed. But in the time being until the rule is changed he should either sit or shave. This is not discrimination as everyone who wrestles is expected to follow this rule.

Help me out because I'm not sure, can other HS sports participants have beards? I'll be honest not something I go looking for but just curious.

A good book for everyone to read regarding the history of the united stated.
A Peoples History of the United States By Robert Zaun

This book is a real eye opener, teaches you the history they don't teach in school

I have been following this post and thought I might add my two cents. Wrestling used to have a hairlength rule. That rule was changed so that if an individual (for whatever reason) wanted to wear long hair they can with an appropriate hair covering. I don't see how a neatly trimmed, non-stubble beard is unacceptable, especially with a chin strap covering. A mustache is already allowable by rule.

Having said that, I think the rules should be enforced until they are changed.

A blanket statement or maybe a poor generalization on my part. I’m not really comparing the kid to a terrorist.

Sorry, if I don’t get my point across here I’m just not the most eloquent of writers.

I would make the same argument if the kid was from Japan and his Shinto religion required a changing of our rules. I don’t want our rules changed as to fit the needs of another culture or religion. This is an extracurricular activity which classifies it as a privilege to compete in and if you don’t abide the rules you don’t participate. If an activity rule interferes with my belief system I walk away. That simple. A great movie ot watch is Chariots of Fire. There is a great example of what I’m talking about in that movie.

I’m going to out on a limb here to make some assumptions, which usually leave me pulling my foot out of my mouth. To address what Kale Mann said about the hair net and facial hair.

(Assumption 1) I believe with the introduction of more female wrestlers into the sport hair lengths were changed and the hair net introduced.

(Assumption 2) As for the facial hair I would first guess that it was a matter of appropriate appearance. Which I must agree with.

(Assumption 3) Facial hair whether stubble or neatly trimmed can have abrasive qualities. I say qualities because I use this tactic on my kids in the practice room whenever the opportunity arises.

Kale I leave the research of these assumptions in your hands. Let me know.

Some bad typing in that last post

Wrestling08 states that Abdul is not the brightest kid in school and he wasn't very bright in Iraq either. Maybe he shouldn't wrestle and hit the books. Last time I checked wrestling won't pay your mortgage.